Pastor John, here’s a question from Caden in Boca Raton, Florida. “Hello, Pastor John! After seeing the documentary American Gospel, I was conflicted because I’m not sure if I am supposed to call out false teachers. Second Peter 2:1–3 makes it obvious that there will be false teachers, but the text also does not say we should point them out. I have heard both sides to this argument, but I’m still not sure. I want to be careful to not ‘pronounce judgment before the time’ (1 Corinthians 4:5). Does this passage apply here in this situation? Are we taking a judgment that isn’t ours? Or should we rest in God’s ultimate knowledge? And if a prominent false teacher is to be called out, who does this — where and how?”
Maybe it would be helpful to step back first and get the bigger picture of the New Testament response to those who live and teach in ways that lead others into error and ruin, and then zero in on 1 Corinthians 4:5 for some guidelines for how we should speak and write about such people.
Beware the Wolves
So let’s begin with Jesus. Matthew 7:15: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” And the word beware means all of us should be alert, but especially shepherds, to identify not just false teaching, but false teachers, whose ways are subtle. They’re clothing themselves with lamb’s wool while they’re wolves.
And Paul used the same Greek word for beware in Acts 20:28–29 when he said, “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. . . . I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the.”
“In order to protect the flock, we should expose false teachers and minimize the spread of the gangrene.” Tweet Share on Facebook
Jesus used the same word again in Matthew 16:6, but he got more specific: “Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Paul had the same kind of group in mind and the same kind of error in mind in Philippians 3:2 and 3:18: “Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh.” And then verse 18: “For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ.” Then in Romans 16:17, he warned, “Watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.”
Avoid, Rebuke, Call Out
To avoid them, you have to know who they are. You can’t avoid somebody if you don’t know who they are. This idea of identifying and avoiding shows up in 1 Corinthians 5:11; 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14; 2 Timothy 3:5; 2 John 10. In other words, Christians, and shepherds in particular, should be discerning and alert to behavior and teaching that dishonors Christ and destroys people — and not treat it in a casual or harmless way.
And then in 1 Timothy 5:19–20, Paul went beyond just “avoid them” to “rebuke them publicly.” So, speaking of elders who persist in error, he said, “Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. As for those who persist in sin” — and that can be sin of false doctrine or sin of evil behavior, anyone who does not accept correction — “rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear..”
And then Paul went on and actually named destructive false teachers:
“Demas, in love with this present world, has deserted me” (2 Timothy 4:10).
“You are aware that all who are in Asia turned away from me, among whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes” (2 Timothy 1:15).
“By rejecting this [faith and a good conscience], some have made shipwreck of their faith, among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander” (1 Timothy 1:19–20).
“Their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus” (2 Timothy 2:17).
Paul names at least six false teachers that the church should watch out for.
So, I infer from Jesus and Paul and Luke and John that false teaching and destructive behavior are present dangers in this fallen world for the church. And all of us — especially shepherds, pastors — should be alert and discerning to identify and, in appropriate ways, expose. In order to protect the flock, we should expose them and minimize the spread of the gangrene (as Paul calls it).
Expose Evil
Now, in 1 Corinthians 4:5, Paul is talking about how the Corinthians should assess Paul and Cephas and Apollos, because the people are choosing sides and boasting in their favorite teacher. He says,
I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one [Paul, Cephas, Apollos] will receive his commendation from God. (1 Corinthians 4:4–5)
“The best protection against the darkness of error is the light of truth.” Tweet Share on Facebook
So Caden is asking whether the words “do not pronounce judgment before the time” should keep us from identifying false teachers or from naming them. I don’t think so. “Don’t pronounce judgment before the time” means “Don’t do what only Christ can do at that last day — on the day of judgment.” Don’t presume to know the heart like Jesus will know the heart on that day. Only Christ “will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart.”
But for now, our job is indeed to do mouth judgment, writing judgment, behavior judgment — not a heart judgment, but mouth and writing and behavior judgment. When a mouth speaks unbiblical, destructive teaching, when a blog or an article or a book publishes unbiblical and destructive teaching, when a body — a human body, a physical body — behaves with unbiblical and destructive behavior, in all these cases, we are to be discerning. And according to Ephesians 5:11, we are to expose the error. “Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.” “Censure them; show them to be wrong” is what the word elegchō means.
Five Factors for Calling Out False Teachers
So the question is how and when — not if. And here I think the Bible calls for wisdom, rather than telling us who and when and how. The question we ask is this: How can we best — in our situation, with our gifts and our responsibilities — help the most people believe and live the most truth, and how can we protect the most people from destructive beliefs and behaviors?
And here are five factors perhaps to consider when deciding whether to name a false teacher publicly.
The seriousness and deceitfulness of the error.
The size of the audience. Is it growing?
The duration of their ministry. Did they make one blunder or are they constantly doing it?
The vulnerability of the people for whom you are responsible.
The role you have in influencing shepherds who really need to be discerning for who the false teachers are.
When you do name a false teacher, it’s best to do it in a setting where you do more than name-drop. You explain the error, you give reasons for rejecting it, you communicate complexities, you set a tone of longing for truth and love — you’re not just slinging mud.
The last thing I would say is to let your teaching be so powerful in clarifying the greatness and the beauty and the worth of God’s truth that your people will smell error before it infects their lives. The shape of error is always changing. You can’t preach enough negative sermons to stay ahead of it. And you don’t have to. The best protection against the darkness of error is the light of truth.
John Piper (@JohnPiper) is founder and teacher of desiringGod.org and chancellor of Bethlehem College & Seminary. For 33 years, he served as pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis, Minnesota. He is author of more than 50 books, including Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist and most recently Coronavirus and Christ.
RetroM, I’ll quote you in a bit or in my nest post with my.respnse.
I need to do that because our conversation was interpreted by CDFF’s false prophet 7744. He’s upset with me because I keep calling attention to his false numerological prophecies that never come to pass. He thinks all Christian men should cut their hair like Nero?
But that brings up another EXTREMELY important topic—biblical prophecy. I’ll touch on it lightly before moving on.
The Bible is chalk-full of accurately FULFILLED prophecies!!
NO other religion or philosophy can boast of such accuracy!!
Fulfilled prophecies and Holy Spirit revealed truths are a hallmark of the true prophet of God—as opposed to a false prophet who dabbles in numerology, false prophecies and anti-truths.
Needless to say, FULFILLED PROPHECIES are just ONE of many proofs that figure pretty big on establishing the credibility of God’s revelation, the Bible.
If you feel you need to requote me to keep the conversation on track, that's fine. It also brings up the important point of staying on topic in such a discussion. If a comment does not match the topic of conversation, it can be because of a simple misunderstanding. However, it can also be a sign that the one making the comment is seeking attention rather than truth.
QUOTE RetroMillennial: Thank you for your response, but I'm afraid it doesn't answer my question. I am asking about behaviors. Your answer is focused on beliefs. Beliefs are subject to change as new information comes to light. Beliefs can be different for different people even though they are confronted with the same information. Beliefs are also subject to debate, especially when no person was alive to witness the events in question. END QUOTE
MY RESPONSE: You’re welcome. As for your question regarding “my behaviors”. I have no idea what “behaviors” you asking about, you’ll need to be more specific.
My answer focused on my belief because you posted the following request, QUOTE: Retro Millennial: “Okay. I've seen you sparring with others on these forums for a while now. What are you doing different that sets you apart from them so that the casual observer knows they should believe you over them?“ END QUOTE
MY RESPONSE: I listed several things I do differently that sets me apart. But if I haven’t been able to answer your question then please rephrase with additional specificity in your next request.
In the meantime, I want to call attention to a statement from your last post. You said “beliefs are subject to change as new information comes to light.”
I don’t know if you read posts before you respond but l addressed that already when I mentioned scientific discovery. Obviously belief that is based on a limited amount of information is subject to change as new information comes to light. That’s why l said God’s Revelation is better than man’s limited exposure to all information. However, God’s revelation flows from an omniscient point of view.
You also posted this, QUOTE: “Beliefs can be different for different people even though they are confronted with the same information. Beliefs are also subject to debate, especially when no person was alive to witness the events in question.” END QUOTE
Apparently you don’t believe in the legitimacy of criminal prosecution?
Some cases for criminal prosecution must precede without live witnesses because all the witnesses were killed. So, obviously no living person who witnessed the crime is available to testify—so shall we just let the killer off scot free???
So, I must then ask you this—-what about the existing evidences?? What about all those compelling evidences that clearly validate only one belief about what took place at that crime science!!?
But some people have a flawed objection to that too. They claim since we don’t have ALL information then no singular belief can be proven true!!
Once again, allow me to reference the criminal prosecution analogy.
Prosecutors and judges could not convict ANY criminal if ALL possible information about the crime was a legal requirement! Similarly, the validity of a particular belief can be proven or disproven on the basis of a >>sufficient<< amount of reliable information.
One can therefore conclude that some beliefs are INVALID beliefs.
I didn’t see your most recent post before I posted my latest one.
I try to be respectful in my responses. Sometimes my humor doesn’t always come through and sometimes l stupidity word things that make me subject to misinterpretation. Other times I say stuff I wish I hadn’t. Still other times I say stuff I think is ok but other people think is wrong. In which I can always try again to reword.
So you’re welcome to hold me accountable to all my responses to you!
Okay, we’re starting to go off track in some of this conversation, but I may be able to help bring things back to the topic. The behaviors I’m talking about refer to how you treat other people. You alluded to it in your second response about being respectful. I’ve seen many on here use extremely condescending language in the discussion forums. I don’t wish to implicate anyone in particular in this, but I’m afraid I can’t say that you’ve stood out in the crowd as one who has risen above kind of behavior.
What do you think are the optics of two people arguing back and forth referring to one another as liars, Pinnochios, and servants of Satan, 666, and so on? Regardless of whether the truth is spoken in a retort, this language is not productive. These are “shut up” terms, similar to the way the term “white privilege” or “male privilege” are used as “shut up” terms so that another’s perspective doesn’t need to be considered. The truth is delicate, and if it’s mixed with blunt instruments such as these, it gets lost or broken.
Believing something different from what another believes is not what sets anyone apart. We can go all over this forum and find people with different perspectives. It’s what we do with those beliefs that will distinguish us as I’ve already alluded. If we’re fighting fire with fire all the time, all an observer will see is a burning inferno and if the truth is somewhere in the midst of that inferno, it’s obscured and it may even get burned too because there’s now nothing to distinguish it from the untruths anymore. Both the lie and the truth have been weaponized to harm another person. That’s all a bit metaphorical, but hopefully it gets my point across that HOW the truth is presented is at least as important as that it is presented.
I do read posts, and I try to contemplate as many possible meanings and intentions of those posts as possible before I respond so that I can be very careful in my response. While the source of a revelation is from an omniscient perspective, it is never interpreted from an omniscient perspective. Every revelation, though perfect, must pass through the filter of human understanding. It does so if you get a revelation during prayer, while reading your Bible, in a dream, anywhere. We are typically smart enough to act appropriately enough on such revelations to fulfil God’s purposes, but we cannot assume that we know or understand all that the revelation has revealed. Part of what defines us as non-omniscient beings is that there is ALWAYS more information to discover that can modify our beliefs and sometimes even upturn them. This is why scientists allow some uncertainty in their work and their beliefs and that should not be counted as a weakness any more than blind certainty can be regarded as a strength.
I do also want to say a brief word about how people can be confronted with the same info and come to different conclusions. Let’s say you and I sit down across a table from an agnostic. Evidently, there is sufficient evidence that the two of us can see to conclude that God exists and we’d like to persuade the agnostic to see what we see. We can present all of our evidence, but confronted with all the evidence may not persuade him. He has his own experiences and his own biases that lead him to draw a different conclusion, or he may want more evidence. It may even come down to how that information is presented. He may not respond to fire and brimstone (most people are numb to doom and gloom anyway), but the message of love might just make him look a second time.
“Apparently you don’t believe in the legitimacy of criminal prosecution?”
This is a straw man argument. All criminal prosecution assembles evidence to the best of its ability, but it doesn’t always guarantee a just verdict. Thus, it’s an unfortunate truth that a guilty man can walk and vice versa that an innocent man can be convicted. The criminal justice system, like personal and religious beliefs, are affected by biases. There are always gaps in the information we have in both science AND Biblical revelation.
I think best way to respond is to copy and paste and insert responses.
RETROMILLENNIAL:Okay, we’re starting to go off track in some of this conversation, but I may be able to help bring things back to the topic. The behaviors I’m talking about refer to how you treat other people. You alluded to it in your second response about being respectful. I’ve seen many on here use extremely condescending language in the discussion forums. I don’t wish to implicate anyone in particular in this, but I’m afraid I can’t say that you’ve stood out in the crowd as one who has risen above kind of behavior.
DAVID: I agree and you’re right to bring my behavior up for discussion. l’m convinced I’ve stepped over the line several times especially when I get lazy and started returning the “liar” term when falsely accused. I started out on the right track when l used to refute false accusations by calling attention to them followed by quoting myself as proof. Gradually I let that habit slip until l regressed into the kind of behavior you’re alluding to. You’ll be happy about some self reforms I’ve initiated. I’ve decided to stop following prophetic 7744 to other people’s threads to defend myself. Because of your and TOTH’s thoughtful posts I’m doing some other serious rethinking. So, nothing you’ve said is wasted on me and l appreciate being held accountable.
But I’m not sure where I got off track with our conversation as you stated, I was only responding to the contents of your previous post.
RETOMILLENNIAL: What do you think are the optics of two people arguing back and forth referring to one another as liars, Pinnochios, and servants of Satan, 666, and so on? Regardless of whether the truth is spoken in a retort, this language is not productive. These are “shut up” terms, similar to the way the term “white privilege” or “male privilege” are used as “shut up” terms so that another’s perspective doesn’t need to be considered. The truth is delicate, and if it’s mixed with blunt instruments such as these, it gets lost or broken.
DAVID: You’re argument is very compelling in this paragraph as well. What you’ve said here figures deep into my solemn rethinking. I’m afraid you’re right, the optics overshadowed their intended objective and regrettably blunted the truth that I wanted to convey. It’s not that I didn’t think of that on my own but sometimes when you hear from someone else it comes across stronger
.RETROMILLENIAL: Believing something different from what another believes is not what sets anyone apart. We can go all over this forum and find people with different perspectives. It’s what we do with those beliefs that will distinguish us as I’ve already alluded. If we’re fighting fire with fire all the time, all an observer will see is a burning inferno and if the truth is somewhere in the midst of that inferno, it’s obscured and it may even get burned too because there’s now nothing to distinguish it from the untruths anymore. Both the lie and the truth have been weaponized to harm another person. That’s all a bit metaphorical, but hopefully it gets my point across that HOW the truth is presented is at least as important as that it is presented.
DAVID: Your point was well received and came across loud and clear. I needed to hear it.
RETROMILLENIAL: I do read posts, and I try to contemplate as many possible meanings and intentions of those posts as possible before I respond so that I can be very careful in my response. While the source of a revelation is from an omniscient perspective, it is never interpreted from an omniscient perspective. Every revelation, though perfect, must pass through the filter of human understanding. It does so if you get a revelation during prayer, while reading your Bible, in a dream, anywhere. We are typically smart enough to act appropriately enough on such revelations to fulfil God’s purposes, but we cannot assume that we know or understand all that the revelation has revealed. Part of what defines us as non-omniscient beings is that there is ALWAYS more information to discover that can modify our beliefs and sometimes even upturn them. This is why scientists allow some uncertainty in their work and their beliefs and that should not be counted as a weakness any more than blind certainty can be regarded as a strength.
DAVID: Sorry didn’t mean to imply you don’t read posts. Something you repeated made me assume perhaps you hadn’t read all of my post. But it’s becoming quite evident you’re a careful reader and thoughtful corespondent.
Ok, on to a different observation located in the same paragraph. I want to call attention to a possible equivocal use of terminology in your statement with regard to the term “revelation” that was used differently with a different sense in the same argument without due distinction. Revelations that are inspired by the Holy Spirit and written as scripture are not made of the same type of conceptual material as human revelation. I know that you know that. But you assumed wrongly that God’s revelation can be ascertained from a sort of arbitrary human “revelation”i.e. through prayer, dreams, anything or reading the Bible. It’s true that scriptural concepts can be “revealed” but only in the sense of rational discovery and through the use of our senses. In others words, we come to understand God’s revealed word (revelation) through the discipline and discovery of study. The idea we understand scripture through any other method than reading and study is foreign to scripture. I’m sure this topic will come up often.
RETROMILLENNIAL:I do also want to say a brief word about how people can be confronted with the same info and come to different conclusions. Let’s say you and I sit down across a table from an agnostic. Evidently, there is sufficient evidence that the two of us can see to conclude that God exists and we’d like to persuade the agnostic to see what we see. We can present all of our evidence, but confronted with all the evidence may not persuade him. He has his own experiences and his own biases that lead him to draw a different conclusion, or he may want more evidence. It may even come down to how that information is presented. He may not respond to fire and brimstone (most people are numb to doom and gloom anyway), but the message of love might just make him look a second time.
DAVID: I agree. But some people won’t accept truth because they hate it. Others won’t accept truth because they’ve adopted a philosophy of denial. This is covered in Romans chapter 1 and from similar statements from Jesus.
RETOMILLENNIAL:“Apparently you don’t believe in the legitimacy of criminal prosecution?” This is a straw man argument. All criminal prosecution assembles evidence to the best of its ability, but it doesn’t always guarantee a just verdict. Thus, it’s an unfortunate truth that a guilty man can walk and vice versa that an innocent man can be convicted. The criminal justice system, like personal and religious beliefs, are affected by biases. There are always gaps in the information we have in both science AND Biblical revelation.
DAVID: Blank assertions are not facts. You say my prosecution analogy is an invalid straw-man argument but the burden of proof rests with you to demonstrate that. Based on your previous post you introduced the skepticism of certainty, I think my analogy is logically sound. I think it’s still relevant here as well with a bit of tweak to accommodate extra information.
Nevertheless, you’re right about human factors such as bias, laziness and just plain dishonesty—sadly but true. I could easily provide examples for each category. But don’t forget, I clearly stressed “compelling evidences” in my alleged “straw-man”. I wanted to accent compelling evidences thar qualify as indisputable facts.
But you’re right, some dishonest prosecutors like Former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, in the Duke lacrosse case, deceitfully withheld evidence so he could get a political conviction. Its because of this kind of prosecutorial and judicial abuse that Project Innocence was established. P. I. estimates that as many as 10% of the prison population are wrongful convictions!! I don’t mean to imply that all wrongful convictions are due to dishonesty. Some result from other factors like the influence of public opinion and a lynch mob press that convicts an alleged criminal without waiting for the facts. But occasional wrongful convictions do not necessarily invalidate the process. After all, it’s that process that often times frees the wrongly convicted.
Hi David, thank you for your reply. I appreciate being able to have a good civil discussion and I want that to be able to continue. It’s quite refreshing. Hopefully some others can now chime in and we can get a more enriched experience as we start to approach the initial question that defines your thread here. I apologize for the length of this post. I strive for brevity, but I also want to minimize misunderstanding.
I want to say first, that I’m sorry if it seemed like I was coming down on you in the early part of my last reply. You don’t need to beat yourself up over it. I’m always having to try to check my tongue and it amazes me how easy it is for me to slip into a pattern inconsistent with how God would like us to be, so I’m content to let that issue drop. I’d like to clarify a couple of things you had questions about from my last post, though, and if it’s okay with you, I’d like to adopt your method of putting my post together like a script the way you just did so that it’s easier to follow what we are each referring to.
David: But I’m not sure where I got off track with our conversation as you stated, I was only responding to the contents of your previous post. [referring to my statement that we’re starting to go off track]
RetroMillennial: Since the topic is about the question of whether to ignore false teachers or to confront them, I was worried that getting too deep into personal beliefs about other parts of the Bible might have led the conversation astray. Sometimes beliefs alone aren’t enough to make it obvious to an onlooker who, if anyone, is correct.
David: …Revelations that are inspired by the Holy Spirit and written as scripture are not made of the same type of conceptual material as human revelation. I know that you know that. But you assumed wrongly that God’s revelation can be ascertained from a sort of arbitrary human “revelation” i.e. through prayer, dreams, anything or reading the Bible. It’s true that scriptural concepts can be “revealed” but only in the sense of rational discovery and through the use of our senses…
RetroMillennial: Some of what you were referring to in your usage of the term revelation seemed a bit ambiguous to me. However, I don’t recall making any assumption about how God’s revelation comes because what I said applies no matter how revelations come. My point that I may have failed to properly convey in my last post was that we can’t escape the limited perceptions of our own minds. Studying the Bible, we are studying the revelations of other people and their experiences with God and still seeing them through the lens of our own perception, which is made up of our experiences, pains, dreams, desires, worldview, and emotional state at the time. That’s why an agnostic may reject our explanation of the Gospel. It may not be that he hates truth. His perception may simply cloud it so that he remains unconvinced. I hope that cleared up my meaning from my last post.
David: You say my prosecution analogy is an invalid straw-man argument but the burden of proof rests with you to demonstrate that. Based on your previous post you introduced the skepticism of certainty, I think my analogy is logically sound. I think it’s still relevant here as well with a bit of tweak to accommodate extra information.
RetroMillennial: No problem. I was indeed referring to the skepticism of certainty, but while you chose an alternative analogy that is very close to being appropriate, I don’t think it quite fits. Your analogy carries with it an assumption that my conclusion about beliefs and certainty was, “don’t plant your flag on any hill (belief) if not 100% certain you are right.” That’s the straw man. You’re right that this would never fly in a court setting, and justice would go unserved. However, I never said we shouldn’t plant our flags on a hill and follow compelling evidence, or if I implied it I didn’t mean to. By all means, plant your flag on the belief that seems most reasonable to you. We can’t function without belief. However, my point is that since 100% certainty is not possible, we should always remain teachable, open to new revelations, and constantly be in earnest search of the truth. The second we assume we have all the answers about anything is the second we’ve started deceiving ourselves.
Okay, so maybe we’re ready to address the question in your post? Should we confront or ignore false teachers? My answer is “sometimes.” There’s a scripture that I’d like to quote to help me give my answer.
James 3:1 (KJV) says “(1) My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation. (2) For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body. (3) Behold, we put bits in the horses’ mouths, that they may obey us; and we turn about their whole body. (4) Behold also the ships, which though they be so great, and are driven of fierce winds, yet are they turned about with a very small helm, withersoever the governor listeth. (5) Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold how great a matter a little fire kindleth.”
This is a good argument against being a teacher in the first place, no? But we still need them. The Message actually manages to bring out my point a little more clearly in the same verses, “(1-2) Don’t be in any rush to become a teacher, my friends. Teaching is a highly responsible work. Teachers are held to the strictest standards. And none of us is perfectly qualified. We get it wrong nearly every time we open our mouths. If you could find someone whose speech was perfectly true, you’d have a perfect person, in perfect control of life. (3-4) A bit in the mouth of a horse controls the whole horse. A small rudder on a huge ship in the hands of a skilled captain sets a course in the face of the strongest winds. A word out of your mouth may seem of no account, but it can accomplish nearly anything-or destroy it!”
So, according to the Bible, we are all “false teachers” from the moment we open our mouths to teach! Should we all be rebuked and silenced? I’d say not necessarily. We still need teachers, even though only one was truly qualified. How we respond to a “false teacher” depends on how wrong they get their teachings, and we can’t always assume malicious intent.
I’m gonna copy and paste part of your last post and respond, then do the same in another post.
RETROMILLENNIAL:I want to say first, that I’m sorry if it seemed like I was coming down on you in the early part of my last reply. You don’t need to beat yourself up over it. I’m always having to try to check my tongue and it amazes me how easy it is for me to slip into a pattern inconsistent with how God would like us to be, so I’m content to let that issue drop. I’d like to clarify a couple of things you had questions about from my last post, though, and if it’s okay with you, I’d like to adopt your method of putting my post together like a script the way you just did so that it’s easier to follow what we are each referring to.
DAVID: Please don’t feel you’ve come too hard, you don’t, note even close. You were respectful, kind and biblical. You’re supposed to exactly what you did, go directly to person who is at fault and talk and that’s what you did. I needed to hear it.
RetroMillennial: Since the topic is about the question of whether to ignore false teachers or to confront them, I was worried that getting too deep into personal beliefs about other parts of the Bible might have led the conversation astray. Sometimes beliefs alone aren’t enough to make it obvious to an onlooker who, if anyone, is correct.
DAVID: ABSOLUTELY correct, especially what you said here: ”Sometimes beliefs alone aren’t enough to make it obvious to an onlooker who, if anyone, is correct.”
Whoops! Thought I had more but that’s all I copied
Sorry about bad copy, dog barked at something and I forgot to go over my response to check for errs.
Earlier had a fox try to get at my chickens. Dog barked again at something and I lost track of what I had written. But here’s a better copy:
DAVID: Please don’t feel you’ve come down too hard, you did not, not even close. You are respectful, kind and biblical. You’re supposed to EXACTLY what you did—go directly to person who is at fault and talk about it and that’s what you did. I needed to hear it.
Even that last draft needs some extra help, oh well.
For some reason pressing the send button helps me see errors better but after it’s too late!
Just hope my second grade teacher doesn’t read it!! I fear that less than 5 foot woman!!
Ok, I’ll quote you again with my replies following
RETROMILLENNIAL: Some of what you were referring to in your usage of the term revelation seemed a bit ambiguous to me. However, I don’t recall making any assumption about how God’s revelation comes because what I said applies no matter how revelations come. My point that I may have failed to properly convey in my last post was that we can’t escape the limited perceptions of our own minds. Studying the Bible, we are studying the revelations of other people and their experiences with God and still seeing them through the lens of our own perception, which is made up of our experiences, pains, dreams, desires, worldview, and emotional state at the time. That’s why an agnostic may reject our explanation of the Gospel. It may not be that he hates truth. His perception may simply cloud it so that he remains unconvinced. I hope that cleared up my meaning from my last post.
DAVID: I may have misinterpreted something you said earlier but that’s not your fault and I’m in agreement now. Yes, our understanding can surely cloud things up.
RETROMILLENNIAL: No problem. I was indeed referring to the skepticism of certainty, but while you chose an alternative analogy that is very close to being appropriate, I don’t think it quite fits. Your analogy carries with it an assumption that my conclusion about beliefs and certainty was, “don’t plant your flag on any hill (belief) if not 100% certain you are right.” That’s the straw man. You’re right that this would never fly in a court setting, and justice would go unserved. However, I never said we shouldn’t plant our flags on a hill and follow compelling evidence, or if I implied it I didn’t mean to. By all means, plant your flag on the belief that seems most reasonable to you. We can’t function without belief. However, my point is that since 100% certainty is not possible, we should always remain teachable, open to new revelations, and constantly be in earnest search of the truth. The second we assume we have all the answers about anything is the second we’ve started deceiving ourselves.
DAVID:Again, I may have misinterpreted what you intended to say earlier but I’m in agreement here.
RETROMILLENNIAL:Okay, so maybe we’re ready to address the question in your post? Should we confront or ignore false teachers? My answer is “sometimes.” There’s a scripture that I’d like to quote to help me give my answer.
James 3:1 (KJV) says “(1) My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation. (2) For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body. (3) Behold, we put bits in the horses’ mouths, that they may obey us; and we turn about their whole body. (4) Behold also the ships, which though they be so great, and are driven of fierce winds, yet are they turned about with a very small helm, withersoever the governor listeth. (5) Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold how great a matter a little fire kindleth.”
This is a good argument against being a teacher in the first place, no? But we still need them. The Message actually manages to bring out my point a little more clearly in the same verses, “(1-2) Don’t be in any rush to become a teacher, my friends. Teaching is a highly responsible work. Teachers are held to the strictest standards. And none of us is perfectly qualified. We get it wrong nearly every time we open our mouths. If you could find someone whose speech was perfectly true, you’d have a perfect person, in perfect control of life. (3-4) A bit in the mouth of a horse controls the whole horse. A small rudder on a huge ship in the hands of a skilled captain sets a course in the face of the strongest winds. A word out of your mouth may seem of no account, but it can accomplish nearly anything-or destroy it!”
So, according to the Bible, we are all “false teachers” from the moment we open our mouths to teach! Should we all be rebuked and silenced? I’d say not necessarily. We still need teachers, even though only one was truly qualified. How we respond to a “false teacher” depends on how wrong they get their teachings, and we can’t always assume malicious intent.
DAVID: I agree with everything you said here for the most part. Especially that James wants to stress the importance and seriousness of teaching.
But you may have indicated a broader definition for the term “false teacher” than l had in mind when I titled the thread. I wasn’t carful to clarify, so I’ll add some detail that may better specify the kind of false teacher I have in mind.
Do you remember the encounter and brief conflict between Paul and Peter,(Cephas) in the book of Galatians?
I’m referring to this chapter because its narrative contains two particular incidents. First, there’s some false teaching by some false brethren who needed to be corrected and exposed. Second, there was Peter who conducted himself in such a way and he also needed correction and exposure because he was wrong and people where being lead astray as a result. So all the players involved in bad teaching needed correction but Peter doesn’t fit the “false teacher” classification I’m using. The “false brethren” however, that Paul mentioned, would be a good example of what I mean by false teacher.
That might not help much. In fact, I might be digging myself deeper. I have more I can share if needed. Don’t worry about challenging anything I’ve posted. I like challenges!! AND NEED them!
Galatians 2
English Standard Version
Paul Accepted by the Apostles
1Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. 3But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. 4Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery— 5to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. 6And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me. 7On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8(for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), 9and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.
Paul Opposes Peter
11But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.a 13And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”
Justified by Faith
15We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16yet we know that a person is not justifiedb by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
17But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! 18For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. 19For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. 20I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousnessc were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.
Footnotes:
a 12 Or fearing those of the circumcision
b 16 Or counted righteous (three times in verse 16); also verse 17
